The purposes of this study were to: (1) describe the status of administrators of joint service programs in special education with respect to race, age, experience, sex, tenure, position on the administrative chart, length of contract, salary, and formal training; (2) describe the role of administrators of joint service programs in special education with respect to supervision, planning, evaluation, in-service education, school systems served, budget, and duties unrelated to special education; (3) develop guidelines that may be used in preparing job descriptions; and (4) develop guidelines for selection of administrators of joint service programs in special education.The population for the study consisted of 27 Indiana administrators of joint service programs in special education. Each of them had at least one year experience administering such a program.The school systems administering joint service programs in special education, during the 1972-73 school year, were plotted on a map of Indiana. Highway 36 was used to divide the state into north and south. Seventeen school systems were located in the northern part of the state and 210 in the southern part of the state. Large joint service programs in special education were determined by identifying all joint service programs serving a total of 15,000+ students, and joint service programs with less than 15,000 students were labeled small joint service programs. If twothirds of the school corporations being served by a joint service program were located in rural communities of less than 5,000 people, the joint service program was labeled rural. Questionnaires were sent to all 27 administrators, and twenty-four of the administrators returned questionnaires. For the purpose of interviewing, the administrators were divided into the following categories:1. Those administering programs in the northern part of the state.2. Those administering programs in the southern part of the state.3. Those administering a large joint service program in special education.4. Those administering a small joint service program in special education.5. Those administering joint service programs in special education, that are for the most part rural.6. Those administering joint service programs in special education, that are for the most part urban.A total of 18 administrators were interviewed, three from each of the six categories. The data were treated normatively using percentages and tables.The major findings of this study are as follows:1. The most common undergraduate major for administrators of joint service programs was special education (58 per cent). Fifty per cent earned graduate majors in special education, 29 per cent in special education and administration, and 13 per in administration and guidance.Fifty per cent of the administrators recommended special education for an undergraduate major.3. The most common recommended graduate major for administrators was a combination of administration and special education (42 per cent).4. Education of exceptional children (54 per cent), school administration (42 per cent), and school law (33 per cent) were courses which were extremely helpful to the administrators. Educational testing and measurement, speech development, educational psychology, and philosophy were said to be helpful by two-thirds or more of the administrators. School finance (63 per cent), school-community relations (46 per cent), school law (37.5 per cent), and diagnosis of children with learning disabilities (37.5 per cent) were courses that were not completed by the administrators, but would have been helpful to them.5. Ninety-six per cent of the administrators were required to hold a Director of Special Education License. The 24 administrators held a total of 55 licenses.6. Fifty-nine per cent of the administrators reported directly to the chairman of the advisory board. Seventy-three per cent felt they should report directly to the chairman of the advisory board.7. Duties of administrators did not vary greatly. Supervision of programs and staff was of concern to all participants.8. Seventeen per cent of the administrators believed someone was prepared to replace them in the event of their death, promotion, retirement or resignation.The findings and conclusions of the study support the following recommendations: 1. It is recommended that job descriptions be prepared for all administrators of joint service programs in special education. Further, it is recommended that administrators be permitted to assist in the preparation of the job description. These instruments should be up-dated each year and may be used as a tool during evaluation.2. It is recommended that Negroes and more women explore administrative opportunities in the field of special education.3. I t is recommended that general administrators join together with administrators of joint special service programs to present their financial and other concerns to the legislature.4. It is recommended that a specific program of objectives be set and a thorough and regular system of program evaluation be established.

The problem of the study was to:1. describe the status of each available Indiana special education joint school service agreement regarding the following demographic variables:a. number of participating school corporations b. average per-student assessed valuation of the participating corporationsc. total student population of the participating school corporationsd. total number of students served with special education services in the cooperativee. total geographical size of the cooperative in square miles2. describe the status of each available Indiana special education joint school service agreement regarding the following agreement provisions:a. authorityb. purpose, statementc. scoped. controle. administrationf. personnel, staffingg. student eligibility h. finance classroom facilities j. equipment, supplies k. transportationl. effective date, duration m. membership, withdrawal n. amendmerts o. execution3. provide an analysis of existing provisions regarding the nature of joint school service agreements in special education, and demographic variables of special education cooperatives, by comparing and contrasting common and unique factors.4. identify commonalities for use in future preparation of special education joint school service agreements. The population for the study consisted of 37 Directors of Indiana Special Education Cooperatives. This number represented 88 percent of the forty-two Indiana directors of special education.The research methodology used included: (1) an analysis of existing special education joint school service agreements; and, (2) development of a questionnaire. The purpose for analyzing existing joint school service agreements was to identify and compare provisions currently in use. A questionnaire was designed to discover attitudes directors of special education cooperatives held toward the provisions of their agreement, as well as the overall effectiveness of their agreement.The fifteen provision titles were taken from Indiana joint school service agreements and listed. Directors of cooperatives were then asked to indicate, with reference to their agreement, which provision either did not apply, was adequate, or, should be changed. If a desire for change was indicated, space was provided to give the director opportunity to express how change would be made, and why it was deemed desirable. A request for certain demographic variables was also included in the questionnaire, as was an opportunity for the director to rate the effectiveness of his overall joint school service agreement. Provisions of agreements were described in narrative form while the various approaches used to achieve those provisions were tabulated according to three sizes of each demographic variable. The expressed desire for change of a provision as well as overall agreement evaluations by the cooperative directors were also illustrated using the consistant table format.Each special education cooperative was identified according to the five demographic variables, and each variable was categorized as being "small," "medium," or "large." This was done by taking the total range of each variable and dividing it into three equal sections. The lowest one-third was termed "small," the middle one-third was termed "medium," and the highest one-third was termed "large."After an analysis of forty-one major findings the following general conclusions were made:1. Shorter agreements were favored by cooperatives desiring flexibility of programming.2. Longer agreements were favored by cooperatives desiring concise and explicit guidelines to follow.3. Provisions included in an agreement were added at the option of the members of the cooperative.4. Little legal criteria have been set concerning joint school service agreements.5. Legal authority had to be taken from a wide variety of sources in order to have an effective agreement.6. Many cooperative directors would prefer having a centralized organization structured under the Interlocal Act.7. Cooperatives prefer objective provisions concerning participating school corporations.8. Local participating corporations are concerned about retaining control for special education programs.9. Cooperative agreements reflect the philosophy and organizational structures of the individual participating corporations.10. Cooperatives could not strictly follow provisions included in agreements and hesitated to assume responsibilities not included in the agreements.11. Most directors believed that their agreement could be improved.The findings and conclusions of the study support the following recommendations:1. Minimal legal criteria for joint school service agreements should be established.2. Each cooperative should be required to respond in some manner to each of the fifteen provisions included in the study while drafting an agreement. Further, it is recommended that implied provisions found between the lines not be assumed or tolerated.3. Local corporations should have as much flexibility as possible to facilitate each of the fifteen minimal provisions, enabling consideration of resources, needs and interests of the local corporation.4. A more encompassing reference of authority should be obtained from legislation.5. A member of the Indiana Division of Special Education should monitor the agreements in terms of minimal requirements. It is further recommended that this official, or another, be given authority to terminate any variation between cooperative agreement and actual practice.6. A program of community relations should be established to inform participating school corporations concerning local special education objectives and available services.7. Alternative ways of establishing and administering joint school programs should be explored.8. Additional related research should be done. Suggested studies are: (1) the possible advantages of centralized organization under the Interlocal Act, Chapter 118, Acts of 1957; (2) the variety of administrative and/or control structures behind joint school service agreements; (3) various financial approaches to local funding of joint programs; and (4) attitudes of local corporations toward jointly programing for special education.A summary table was included to identify commonalities among the three sizes of the five demographic variables and the fifteen agreement provisions. Provisions most frequently used in each category were indicated, as were expressed desires by directors that provisions be changed.

There is no abstract available for this dissertation.

The purpose of the study was to compare the perceptions of directors of special education cooperatives and superintendents in determining the actual and ideal role of the special education director in-the State of Indiana. The population consisted of fifty-seven directors and forty-two superintendents.A twenty-five item questionnaire containing statements pertaining to the role of the director of special education was utilized. Two null hypotheses were tested by using Chi-square. The .05 level of significance was established as the critical probability level for the nonacceptance of hypotheses.Findings1. Directors of special education and superintendents indicated agreement in perception on fifteen of the twenty-five items of the questionnaire regarding the director having actual responsibility and authority and ideal--having responsibility and authority.2. Of the sixteen significant findings, ten were in the authority dimension of the questionnaire.3. Directors of special education perceived the role of special education director as ideally having more authority to prepare the special education budget, approve expenditures, assign and supervise special education personnel, determine types of programing alternatives to be offered in the instructional program, keep staff informed of current trends, methods, procedures, rules and regulations, and allocate existing physical space for special education programs.4. Superintendents perceived the role of special education director as having more actual responsibility to determine transportation needs for the program, receive, initiate and process psychological diagnostic services, conduct procedures for reviewing handicapped student's program, and develop, implement and supervise curriculum for special education programs.Conclusions1. A conflict in role perception between directors of special education and superintendents generally does not exist.2. Differences in role perception will more often result from conflict over authority.3. Determining transportation needs for the special education program will probably result in role conflict between directors of special education and superintendents.

Minority students are overrepresented in special education in many urban school districts across the United States. The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of the implementation of policies and training related to the use of a problem solving general education intervention model in an urban school system. Disproportionate representation is problematic if the programming is stigmatizing or ineffective, or if the process of identification is not applied equally to different groups of students (NRC, 1982). The Metropolitan School District of Pike Township administrators elected to begin a general education intervention initiative to address overrepresentation of minority students in special education within the school district. The initiative included all nine of the elementary schools in the district. It included training teams in each school in the use of a problem solving process as a key component to the general education intervention team. The results of this study will be used to make further recommendations regarding the school district's general education intervention initiative. / Department of Special Education

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between special education directors' self-perceived leadership practices, self-perceived stress types, and self-reported demographics. The study included three parts: a demographic profile consisting of six variables; the self-report form of the Leadership Practices Inventory; and the self-report of the Administrative Stress Index. The forms were sent to all 115 special education directors in the state of Indiana and a response rate of 60% was utilized. The first null hypothesis that mean scale scores would not differ across the five leadership practices was not supported. Enable Others to Act and Model the Way scores were significant. The second null hypothesis that participants' scores would not differ across task-oriented and relationship oriented stress types was supported. There were no statistically significant relationships reported between leadership practice and self-reported task or relationship-oriented stress to support the third null hypothesis. The fourth null hypothesis that stress types will not differ when comparing the demographic variables was not supported. Directors with 16 or more years of experience in education and employed by a single planning district indicated more task-oriented stress compared to directors from both joint services and interlocal districts and those with less than 16 years experience in education. The fifth hypothesis that leadership practices would not differ when compared to demographic variables was not supported. Years of experience in education indicated significant results in three leadership practices, Model the Way, Challenge the Process, and Enable Others to Act. This may indicate a shift in leadership practices as experience increases. / Department of Special Education

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Consistent under-reporting of autism cases by Indiana physicians to the Indiana Birth Defects and Problems Registry (IBDPR) has made quality autism-related data very difficult to obtain (Indiana Birth Defects and Problems Registry [IBDPR], 2011). As a result, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently also utilizes data from billing information that it receives from hospital discharges. However, such cases must be investigated further because autism is often merely suspected as a possibility in the discharge data. A chart auditor must therefore review the child’s chart to determine if the condition is confirmed. Meanwhile, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) has a different diagnostic procedure from physicians for determining whether a student has an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which qualifies him or her for special education. A physician diagnosis of autism does not guarantee that a child will receive special education from public schools. With all of these current complications surrounding autism, announced changes in the definition of autism by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) will likely have effects on both the special education field and the public health field. There is a possibility that children who had previously received special education could cease to maintain their eligibility and may find it difficult to obtain benefits. The IDOE may find it necessary to reevaluate their criteria for determining special education eligibility. Additionally, public health officials may see the definition changes affect the number of autism cases they perceive their populations to have, thus impacting community and policy decisions. This study was performed as an attempt to investigate and compare the sources used by the IBDPR to obtain autism data, and determine whether or not the resulting data creates an accurate depiction of the autistic population of Indiana. It was also performed to speculate whether a stricter definition of autism will result in a higher quality of data for the IBDPR and a more consistent view on the disorder between the ISDH and the IDOE. Perhaps from such consistency and simpler definitions, future recorded data will more closely resemble that of reality, enabling the ISDH to utilize the IBDPR to its full extent. Using current definitions for an exploratory analysis of data from the past five years, a discrepancy clearly exists between the IBDPR and the reality of the population of Indiana.